It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legislation to limit money in Washington passed!

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   

The Democratic-controlled House on Friday approved legislation aimed at reducing the role of big money in politics, ensuring fair elections and strengthening ethics standards.
-
The House measure would make it easier to register and vote, and would tighten election security and require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.

Election Day would become a holiday for federal workers, and a public financing system for congressional campaigns would be set up.

Boston

Doesn't this sound like everything we always say we would do if we had the power? Limit money and donations, require transparency and honesty, strengthen election security. Even a free holiday for some so more people can get to vote!


But it stands little chance in the Republican-run Senate, where the GOP leader has pledged it will not come up for a vote, and the White House issued a veto threat.


Whaaaat?

Anyone else have this reaction when they read this?

The White House calls it "micromanaging" elections and calls the programs unnecessary and costly at the same time as $1b of military pay and pension funds are being diverted for steel fencing at the border.

ATS. Do you stand with what you've always wanted or do you now change your hopes and dreams in order to fall in with the party? Moment of truth.

I dare you to be true to yourselves.



+4 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Duderino

The Democratic-controlled House on Friday approved legislation aimed at reducing the role of big money in politics, ensuring fair elections and strengthening ethics standards.
-
The House measure would make it easier to register and vote, and would tighten election security and require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.

Election Day would become a holiday for federal workers, and a public financing system for congressional campaigns would be set up.

Boston

Doesn't this sound like everything we always say we would do if we had the power? Limit money and donations, require transparency and honesty, strengthen election security. Even a free holiday for some so more people can get to vote!


But it stands little chance in the Republican-run Senate, where the GOP leader has pledged it will not come up for a vote, and the White House issued a veto threat.


Whaaaat?

Anyone else have this reaction when they read this?

The White House calls it "micromanaging" elections and calls the programs unnecessary and costly at the same time as $1b of military pay and pension funds are being diverted for steel fencing at the border.

ATS. Do you stand with what you've always wanted or do you now change your hopes and dreams in order to fall in with the party? Moment of truth.

I dare you to be true to yourselves.


Why just Presidents to disclose tax returns? Shouldn't congress and senate need to as well?

How does the bill limit money? Is photo ID part of voter security? Aren't Democrats against photo ID.

Inquiring minds want to know...


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

Although, possibly a good idea, how much is it going to cost? Isn't it more effective to just request voter ID at voting stations. Why do government employees need another holiday, more than everybody else? Disclose their tax returns? Who cares, let's have a complete forensic audit of everyone in the senate, Congress, Whitehouse and supreme court!!!

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/8.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I'm an inquiring mind too, I can't wait to see the details of this.

Apart from that, let's say that hypothetically the bill is as it seems and no funny stuff is found lurking within - do you agree with it at face value?



edit on 8-3-2019 by Duderino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

I don't consider myself a Republican but lean that way.

but this part bothers me



The House measure would make it easier to register and vote, and would tighten election security


Define easier? online, etc..

as far as providing taxes sure, and limiting big money sure. Although I think it is pretty naive to think even if it passed that there isn't way to make money change hands... A vacation here, a gift there.

I worked for big pharma and they put laws, and internal rules in place to prevent Doctors from getting kickbacks from big pharma but we all know it still happens.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

Is this the same bill where Democrats inserted the right for non-citizens to vote? I believe the disagreement from the GOP in the Senate may be warranted, if that is the case.

Waiting for the day we can have the ability to vote on individual line items rather then being forced to strike a complete bill. Sigh. It is the nature of the beast, as far as it stands currently.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Duderino




as $1b of military pay and pension funds are being diverted for steel fencing at the border.


It becomes hard to take your thread seriously when you stick blatant lies in your OP.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Duderino
what do you mean you cannot wait to see the details?? This was mentioned in january, you had plenty of time to read the details. How is it you open a thread with such certainty of your views, and you have not even read the details??

The way you opened up, I actually thought you read the legislation publicly available on the congress government website. I suppose it is more truthful to you to hear and read pundits interpretation rather thasn actually investigating the legislation and reading it for yourself.
Go read the thing before you open a thread with such arrogant cockiness.
edit on 3-8-2019 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Duderino

Apart from that, let's say that hypothetically the bill is as it seems and no funny stuff is found lurking within - do you agree with it at face value?


At face value--or at least the face value of the intent stated--I, for one, do agree in general principle.

However, that "funny stuff" part...you can rest assured the clowns always have some junk in the trunk of the clown car as it were.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   
you know what, page one still, I am going to post the writing in its entirety for historical and documenting purposes. From the link in the previous post, I now bring you the meat and potatoes. First the index, they are as links to the corresponding writing on the website.

Union Calendar No. 5
116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1

[Report No. 116–15, Part I]

To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2019

Mr. Sarbanes (for himself and Ms. Pelosi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Education and Labor, Ways and Means, Financial Services, Ethics, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
March 4, 2019

Additional sponsors: Ms. Adams, Mr. Allred, Ms. Barragán, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Ms. Brownley of California, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Case, Mr. Casten of Illinois, Ms. Castor of Florida, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Clay, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Correa, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Cox of California, Mrs. Craig, Mr. Crist, Mr. Crow, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Davids of Kansas, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Dean, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Delgado, Mrs. Demings, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Engel, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Fletcher, Ms. Frankel, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. García of Illinois, Mr. Golden, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Haaland, Mr. Harder of California, Mr. Hastings, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Heck, Mr. Higgins of New York, Ms. Hill of California, Mr. Himes, Mr. Horsford, Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Keating, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Kim, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mrs. Lawrence, Mr. Lawson of Florida, Ms. Lee of California, Mrs. Lee of Nevada, Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. Levin of California, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lowenthal, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Luján, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Malinowski, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Ms. Matsui, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McEachin, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Morelle, Mr. Moulton, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal, Mr. Neguse, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Omar, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Payne, Mr. Peters, Mr. Phillips, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Porter, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Raskin, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Rose of New York, Mr. Rouda, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Sánchez, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Schrier, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Ms. Shalala, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sires, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Soto, Ms. Spanberger, Ms. Speier, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Takano, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Titus, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Torres of California, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Trone, Ms. Underwood, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Vela, Ms. Velázquez, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Waters, Mr. Welch, Ms. Wild, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Bera, Ms. Slotkin, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Moore, Mr. Foster, Mr. Cleaver, Mrs. McBath, Ms. Blunt Rochester, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Bass, Mr. O'Halleran, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Costa, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Wexton, Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Finkenauer, Mrs. Axne, Mr. Visclosky, Mrs. Luria, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Peterson, Ms. Sherrill, Ms. Stevens, Mrs. Murphy, Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. McAdams, Ms. Torres Small of New Mexico, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Cuellar, and Mr. Richmond
March 4, 2019
 


Mod Edit - Link to Full Text of Bill
edit on 3/8/2019 by Blaine91555 because: excessive quote instead of a link



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   

The Democratic-controlled House on Friday approved legislation aimed at reducing the role of big money in politics, ensuring fair elections and strengthening ethics standards.


The same people that argued they had the right to rig their primaries.

The same people that have violated numerous ethics laws spying on the current president, created fake dossiers, and is now investigating the current presidents associates, family, and tax returns.

The democratic controlled House is full of snip.

What they're trying to do is stack the deck in their favor.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Jesus these idiots give out there game plans out in plain site now...bring in say 1 million plus illegals illegally before the 2020 elections and Walla....all border states are now blue!

Republicans better figure it out soon or this country will become a cess pool!

Just sickening!


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

Make it EASIER to vote??!????!????
If it were any easier, you wouldn't have to speak English, or have an address, or even be a citizen!

Oh, wait.........



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Duderino
a reply to: Edumakated

I'm an inquiring mind too, I can't wait to see the details of this.

Apart from that, let's say that hypothetically the bill is as it seems and no funny stuff is found lurking within - do you agree with it at face value?




I would agree that it would be an historical piece of legislation. Just imagine, a bill that actually does what it says. It would be a welcome change from things like The Patriot Act or the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.

But legislators voting to limit the amount of money they get from special interest groups with no loopholes? Yeah, that will happen.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Funny stuff how people are not allowed to pick up trash in their own yard while black without proper identification but anyone can go and cast a vote just by showing up to the polls no matter who you are.

Goodness gracious what would be wrong with requiring a state issued id to participate in government elections? Make them free of charge if we have to but let's clean up this mess.




posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   

PART 4—CONDITIONS ON REMOVAL ON BASIS OF INTERSTATE CROSS-CHECKS

Sec. 1041. Conditions on removal of registrants from official list of eligible voters on basis of interstate cross-checks.
PART 5—OTHER INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE VOTER REGISTRATION

Sec. 1051. Annual reports on voter registration statistics.
PART 6—AVAILABILITY OF HAVA REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS

Sec. 1061. Availability of requirements payments under HAVA to cover costs of compliance with new requirements.
PART 7—PROHIBITING INTERFERENCE WITH VOTER REGISTRATION

Sec. 1071. [Reserved].

Sec. 1072. Establishment of best practices.
Subtitle B—Access to Voting for Individuals With Disabilities

Sec. 1101. Requirements for States to promote access to voter registration and voting for individuals with disabilities.

Sec. 1102. Expansion and reauthorization of grant program to assure voting access for individuals with disabilities.
Subtitle C—Prohibiting Voter Caging

Sec. 1201. [Reserved].

Sec. 1202. Development and adoption of best practices for preventing voter caging.
Subtitle D—[Reserved]
Subtitle E—[Reserved]
Subtitle F—Promoting Accuracy, Integrity, and Security Through Voter-Verified Permanent Paper Ballot

I won't even be able to fit the entire index in there, oh well. You guys have the link to the full bill. Go read it. I am out of time for ATS today.
edit on 3-8-2019 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)


 

Mod Edit - Link to Full Text of Bill
edit on 3/8/2019 by Blaine91555 because: needless long quote



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The arguments from the Senate are it allows felons to vote, they want to fund campaigns using taxpayer dollars, and weakens the integrity of voting.

Here is what the White House had to say about it:



The White House said in a statement that the Democrats’ plan would “micromanage” elections that now are run largely by states and would establish “costly and unnecessary program to finance political campaigns.”


Basically, the taxpayer would match contributions up to $200 at a 6 to 1 ratio. So on that note, no I don't support this because all the Dems are looking out for are those career politicians we already hate.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Its a Democrat party wish list ... why would the Republicans in the Senate support it.... and the Dems knew they wouldn't.

If the Democrats where serious about increasing voter participation across the board they would put forth legislation that was acceptable to both parties.

This is just more of the same waist of time that Congress is famous for.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
I can't wait until we can all sneak over to Mexico or Canada and vote for their leadership.



posted on Mar, 8 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

It's all smoke and mirrors. Look at how Republicans and Democrats threw away 97 billion of our dollars.

mobile.twitter.com...

Think of how many American lives could have been saved with appropriate use of those funds.




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join